Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 177

Scientists move closer to a universal flu vaccine

(Credit: AP/Damian Dovarganes)

The flu takes a formidable toll each year. Researchers and health workers save lives by routinely rolling out seasonal vaccines and deploying drugs to fight the virus and its secondary infections. But in the U.S. alone the flu still��kills tens of thousands��of people and hospitalizes hundreds of thousands more.

A big part of the problem has been correctly predicting what strains of the influenza virus health officials should try to combat in a given season. A team of scientists from the U.S. and China now say they have designed a vaccine that could take the guesswork out of seasonal flu protection by boosting the immune system���s capacity to combat many viral strains.

The University of California, Los Angeles ��� led group reported in this week���s��Science��that they may have created the ���Goldilocks��� of flu vaccines ��� one that manages to trigger a very strong immune response without making infected animals sick. And unlike current flu vaccines, the new version also fuels a strong reaction from disease-fighting white blood cells called T cells. That development is important because a T cell response will likely confer longer-term protection than current inoculations do and defend against a variety of flu strains (because T cells would be on the lookout for several different features of the flu virus whereas antibodies would be primarily focused on the shape of a specific strain). ���This is really exciting,��� says Kathleen Sullivan, chief of the Division of Allergy and Immunology at The Children���s Hospital of Philadelphia, who was not involved in the work.

So what makes the U.C.L.A. team���s flu approach different than others? Flu vaccines typically include a cocktail of several strains of killed virus. Injecting this mix into the body prompts the development of antibodies that can latch onto any intruder that resembles the flu ��� helping prevent infection. But that standard method does not lead to a significant T cell reaction because the virus is dead. The new vaccine, by contrast, uses a live virus, so it elicits both an antibody response and T cell immunity ��� at least in lab ferrets and mice. ���It has the magic of both great antibody response and inducing a strong, strong T cell response that will be a safety net ��� so if a virus breaks through the first line of defense, you will have T cells to make sure you don���t get very sick,��� Sullivan says.

The researchers dissected the flu virus in lab dishes and tested how different mutations in each segment responded when exposed to interferon, a protein released by the body when viruses attack that helps keep flu infections in check. The scientists were then able to identify which mutations made the virus most likely to provoke action from protective interferons. Armed with that information, the researchers then designed a mutant flu strain that was powerful enough to replicate well but highly susceptible to our body���s own ability to control the virus ��� the ideal ingredients for a vaccine.

The resulting inoculation looks promising in both ferrets and mice, the most commonly used models of influenza infection. If this approach is proved to work as well in humans, the authors say their invention could negate the need for annual flu shots. (Although they are not sure how long their vaccine would remain effective in humans, T cell responses tend to confer longer-term immunity.) The scientists believe that because they included eight mutations in their lab-made viral strain, it is unlikely the virus will revert back to its original, more dangerous form (a common concern with any live-virus vaccine). There may also be other applications from this work, they say: Researchers could similarly take other viruses apart in the lab, scour them for important mutations and create vaccines against a plethora of other infections.

Multiple obstacles stand in the way of this becoming a future universal flu vaccine for humans, scientists from The Scripps Research Institute cautioned in an accompanying commentary in��Science. Chief among them: although the U.C.L.A. team found there was some cross-protection across a small set of flu strains ��� H1N1 and H3N2 subtypes ��� that may not hold true across all forms of the flu. Researchers will also have to examine if triggering a robust immune response to the virus puts people at risk, Sullivan notes, because a frenzied immune system response is what destroys lung tissue and sometimes proves deadly when people are infected with H5N1, a type of avian flu. ���There are lots of practical questions about rolling this out for humans,��� she says. ���But this is hugely innovative and exciting.���

Lessons from “Groundhog Day”: More resonant than ever today

Andie MacDowell and Bill Murray in "Groundhog Day" (Credit: Columbia Pictures)

One of the great joys of a classic film is the way your relationship with it keeps evolving. It changes as you change and the world changes. And 25��years on, wow, does “Groundhog Day” ��� a tale of connection, redemption and decluttering your bucket list ��� feel exactly like the movie��I need right now.

On February 2,��the most famous rodent in the world, Punxsutawney Phil, will emerge from his Pennsylvania dwelling and use his shadow-casting powers of prognostication to determine the duration of the remainder of winter. A few days later, the film that sealed Phil’s fame will celebrate its milestone birthday.��Since its 1993 debut, director and co-writer Harold Ramis’ comedy about��glib weatherman Phil Connors (Bill Murray) forced to relive the same dreary winter day over and over again until he gets it right has inspired��a Broadway musical and been shown in NYU Buddhism classes. The film’s surface��appeal is in its slapstick and romance, but its durability is in its ability to tap into the profound recurring questions of life: What am I doing with my time? Does anything I did today even matter? If I had a second chance, would I learn anything, or just keep making the same dumb mistakes? And why won’t the universe just tell me what the hell is going on here?

When I saw “Groundhog Day” for the first time as a young person, I was charmed by it. It seemed very much a product of its early-’90s era, a spiritual cousin to Albert Brooks’ mystical 1991 dramedy “Defending Your Life.”

Now that I’m��more in the ballpark of the age Ramis was when he made “Groundhog Day” and carrying my own lengthy string of regrets and failures behind me, however, I am far more deeply dazzled by it. Now, I see more clearly and painfully how much we value wringing 40 hours of work out of an eight hour day. How we consider “Hustle” a motivational mantra. And how we��tweet and Instagram out our peak moments and cleverest thoughts, seemingly YOLO-ing ourselves to death. That’s why I love “Groundhog Day,”��a story of what’s beyond the hustle, all the more.

Phil, cursed with infinity itself, cycles through stages of disbelief, decadence and despair until arriving at pure, determined effort. Fans of the film��know by heart the scenes of him learning French and piano and playing card flicking, all while��honing a perfectly timed feel for the rhythms of the town and its denizens. But in the end it’s not, as one critic called it, Phil’s now “effortless” aptitude for party tricks that liberates him from Punxsutawney purgatory. Nor is it his refinement of his techniques to woo his love interest Rita (Andie MacDowell) by pretending to be her ideal match ��� a ruse that results instead in a cascade of face slaps.

No, what liberates Phil is��figuring out how to put aside his most selfish motives and be of service to others. It’s when he learns to��love and possibly be loved in return, which for many of us is far more difficult than playing Rachmaninoff’s “Rhapsody on a Theme by Paganini.” ��And Phil��gets there��by making a million ridiculous mistakes. Perfection doesn’t save Phil. Vulnerability and compassion and being present to other people’s experiences, that’s his ticket.��

The problem of what to do with the cruelly short span of time we are granted is a subject that perpetually fascinates and haunts us. We’re encouraged to live each day like it’s the last, to cram as much experience into life as possible.��Yet I know from having had a fatal disease with a catastrophic prognosis that getting more time doesn’t necessarily compel a person to start jumping out of airplanes or mastering the tango, or for that matter, rescuing kids who fall from trees. Me, I just got that waffle iron I’d meaning to get around to buying.��But I do generally try to be a kinder, more empathetic person, because in the end, that’s the��pretty much all that actually matters.��

Thinking��about “Groundhog Day” now, I’m reminded of a January Medium story by J. Kelly Hoey about learning the difference between networking and building true networks, and her advice to “making a choice to notice. To be present. To care about the people you interact with regularly.” It’s a great plan, whether you’re trying to advance in your career or escape the cruel caprices of the gods.��

In the decades since “Groundhog Day” endeared itself to moviegoers, few other comedies have so capably taken on its existential quandaries ��� or even tried to. The film’s closest contemporary relation is easily “The Good Place,”��a��clever sitcom that happens to be about ethics, philosophy and how to maximize one’s eternity. And in both Pennsylvania and��the sadistically designed afterlife, there are no shortcuts to enlightenment. As James Poniewozik astutely noted in the New York Times, the show has “avoided falling into easy moralizing by committing to the idea that becoming good is hard work.”��In an era when goodness and generosity feel so��acutely under assault, it feels supremely sustaining to be reminded of why it’s worth the effort.��

The traditional hero’s journey tale involves a grand challenge and a limited amount of time to achieve it. “Groundhog Day,” bless its weird heart, takes a different approach, reminding that��life often amounts to lots of little opportunities we’re usually too wrapped up in ourselves to take. And what saves your soul isn’t standing on a stage having people applaud for you, or flawlessly��showing off a new skill.��It’s just waking up to a new day knowing there are people in the world you care about, and a fresh set of chances to show them just how much. Again and again and again and again.

“Altered Carbon”: Same bleak future, different title

Joel Kinnaman in "Altered Carbon" (Credit: Netflix)

Surely you���ve noticed by now that the dominant science fiction vision of the future make it plain that, in so many words, the world of tomorrow ain���t bright. ��No ���Jetsons���-style age awaits us, with the exception, possibly, of flying cars and robot housekeepers. But the take Ridley Scott realized in 1982���s ���Blade Runner��� feels increasingly likely nowadays, what with the widening gulf between the richest of the rich and the rest of us.

Netflix���s ���Altered Carbon,��� debuting its 10-episode first season on Friday, emulates the look and feel of Scott���s sci-fi classic down to the grimy streets teeming with unwashed civilians, beckoning holograms and the lure of flesh and cheap thrills. Even the daytime scenes have a dimness to them.

Audiences may readily accept this construct because it���s been imitated in countless science fiction films and series over the ensuing 36 years since the theatrical release of ���Blade Runner,��� but also because given the direction the world is heading in, a dark, impersonal and highly automated future feels pretty likely.

One Percenters already live above us all, sequestering themselves in penthouses and exclusive communities removed from the scarcity and struggle with which the bulk of humanity lives. As time passes, those luxury buildings climb ever higher, tall enough to block out the sun, making even rays of natural light a luxury affordable only to the wealthiest. Earth-bound remnants of mankind, meanwhile, get splattered with rain and air conditioner moisture on streets illuminated by crass neon signage.

Most of that paragraph describes the world presented in ���Altered Carbon,��� by the way. Not ours. Yet.

But if the world reflected in Laeta Kalogridis��� series does come to pass, you might want to sign up for some weapons training and invest in penny stocks. Just because ���Altered Carbon��� wears its influences like flare on its collar doesn���t mean the show isn���t fun. On the contrary, it���s nearly audacious in its conscientious effort to pander to fans of ���The Matrix��� and ���Fifth Element��� and may have been left wanting by ���Blade Runner 2049.��� For here, Kalogridis has created a perfect serialized action piece for the scif-fi addict that part revolution tale part romance and just for giggles, tosses in the kind of bitchy intrigue usually enjoyed by watching ���Dynasty.���

In ���Altered Carbon,��� mankind has achieved a sort of synthesized extension of lifespan via devices called stacks. Consciousness is downloaded into these small devices through our lifetimes and can be transferred into new bodies, called sleeves, when our old flesh gives out. The quality of sleeves most receive depends on one���s resources, leading to instances in which the maturity, cultural identity or experiences of a consciousness does not match the body into which it is re-sleeved.

Such is the case with Takeshi Kovacs, an elite soldier with a Japanese mother re-activated in Bay City, a San Francisco-esque city after a 250-year slumber wearing the body of a white guy played by Joel Kinnaman. Initially this bears uncomfortable similarities to the kind of whitewashing perpetuated in the live-action version of ���Ghost in the Shell,��� but Kinnaman���s version of Kovacs has an explanation beyond ���this star will sell this series.���

Responsible for Kovacs��� resurrection is the astronomically wealthy Laurens Bancroft (James Purefoy, at his most sinister and patrician), who charges Kovacs with solving his murder. If a stack is destroyed, as Bancroft���s was, that���s the end of a person���s life unless they have the means to back up their consciousness elsewhere, ready to be implanted into their clones (again, something only the richest of the rich can afford) whenever the need arises.

Richard K. Morgan originated this concept in the 2002 novel that inspires the series, and it lends itself to its own version of existential examination. Religious exceptions can be made to the mandatory re-sleeving process, predicated on the belief that the soul should be released to continue on to heaven.

On the other side of this is Bancroft���s economic class, known as ���Meths��� (named for the centuries-old biblical figure Methuselah), who can afford to live for hundreds of years, securing lasting wealth in their families while doing so. Bancroft and his ilk have convinced themselves and the worlds that they are god, and their endless resources and technologically-assisted immortality combined with just enough of an appearance of charity does manage to secure them followers. To them the world is divided between those who have and those they can use.

Apropos of this vision, the major of the female characters in ���Altered Carbon��� fall into two categories: they���re either warriors hardened enough to survive this world or pliant flesh to serve the fantasies of rough and careless men. Even Bancroft���s wife Miriam (Kristin Lehman) has a state-of-the-art sleeve built to optimize pleasure, not to mention a wardrobe designed to let the world know she has no love for underwear.

These themes are nothing new to the genre, but ���Altered Carbon��� has the keen sense to weave them into a character-driven mystery that commands the attention it requires. The major quibble a person might have with the series, besides the obvious lifts from Scott and Philip K. Dick, is that it introduces a veritable mall���s worth characters involve in so many subplots that at times, it���s tough to keep track.

Even the core characters get shorted at times, particularly Martha Higareda���s Bay City detective Kristin Ortega who takes an immediate interest in Kovacs and his relationship to Bancroft. Ortega is one of many characters representing a multilingual, ethnically-blended future (also inevitable at this point) and articulates the philosophical and ethical challenges inherent in the conflict between religion and technology. It���s impossible to solve murders if the only witness is a victim whose beliefs prevent their stacks from being activated.

But Higareda does a serviceable job with a character that spends most of her time being frustrated and angry. Renee Elise Goldsberry has richer material to work with as Kovacs��� lover and combat mentor who lives on in his memories but receives extensive development in a late-season flashback episode that explains the origins of Kovacs and his fellow Envoys, the rebel outfit with which he fought and where he received the superior training Bancroft is keen to exploit.

Kinnaman assumes many of the characteristics as Harrison Ford���s world-weary ���Blade Runner��� hero Rick Deckard, a character that, in turn, was built upon the construct of any number of hardboiled black-and-white detectives.

This battened down personality is a bit of a departure from Kinnaman���s work in ���The Killing,��� but it also calls upon his ability to express through minor shadings in affect as opposed to what he says, appropriate to a character yanked from his own life and shoved into the skin of another man. Kovacs��� original personality is portrayed by Will Yun Lee, who has access to a wider emotional palette suitable for a man still growing into the skin he was born in �����and who loses much in his first life.

Other characters get to have more fun, adding a necessary lightness to a season that teeters on the borderline between noir and full-blown melancholia for most of its run. Chris Conner���s Poe, the artificially intelligence serving as the proprietor of a formerly glamorous hotel Kovacs uses as his home base, is designed to win the viewer���s affection and quickly succeeds. Dichen Lachman, as a prominent player in Kovacs past, gets a chance to stretch her action chops as well.

Elements of the season���s arc are propelled and resolved by a few mildly irritating deus ex machina shenanigans that are only partly justified. By the time those surface in the season, though, most people will be well past caring about those tidbits as long as they bring the case to a defensible conclusion which, it must be said, they do.

The roads that ���Altered Carbon��� takes to its destination aren���t new to us but enough of us have enjoyed previous versions of these trips to appreciate this version of the ride. Some incarnations of speculative fiction repeat time and again because they make sense to us. Besides, science fiction inspires reality as much as reality informs fiction. Should our collective destiny involve a descent into murkiness, there may be hope in the idea of extending time to course correct, to get a do-over.

���Altered Carbon��� probably won���t inspire many people to live forever, regardless of its fantasy of infinite wealth and impunity. But it���s entertaining enough to allow fantasies about the ���what ifs��� of a second season, and for a number of us, know that much about what���s coming should be adequate.

What life as a refugee is really like

Christina Psarra, MSF mission director at the Oakland, CA "Forced From Home" Exhibit (Credit: Lauren Schiller)

In order to really understand someone, they say, you have to walk a mile in their shoes. I received an invitation from Doctors Without Borders recently to do just that.

The international rescue organization, also known as Medicins San Frontiers (MSF), provides humanitarian aid to refugees: people who have literally sacrificed everything in their lives to flee the only homes they���ve ever known. The families who make the difficult decision to leave their homelands are survivors. But as we see from widespread support for the Trump administration���s attempts to pass a travel ban against people from the hardest-hit nations in the refugee crisis–places like Syria, Somalia, Chad and Libya– many Americans don���t see survivors — they see potential threats.

Last year, MSF created “Forced From Home,” a free immersive exhibition that toured the United States. The purpose of the experience was to give average Americans a first-person perspective of the life of a refugee, from the moment they leave home to the time they make it����� if they make it����� to a border crossing or refugee camp.

The exhibit I visited was set up in a convention center parking lot in Oakland, CA. My tour group included a high school teacher with a few of her students, a woman who worked in humanitarian aid herself and a woman who had previously volunteered for a refugee organization.

Christina Psarra, one of the heads of mission for Doctors Without Borders and my latest guest on “Inflection Point,” was our guide. She greeted us and the experience began:

Just imagine you���re running from the only home you���ve ever known. Literally running.

Our group had��60 seconds to choose five items to take with us on our journey����� things like money, a cell phone, shoes, clothing, a passport and medicine.

Next we headed to a rubber boat that fit maybe��15 people safely. Before we got on the boat, we were told to give up one of our five items. At every stop on my virtual refugee experience I was told to give up another one of my five items until, at the end, I had nothing.

Christina told us that sometimes people have to leave behind family members.

Once aboard the lifeboat, Christina held up two life vests and told us that were this an actual boat, the life vest we each received was probably fake. The boat for��15 would eventually carry up to��60 passengers including men, women and children who cannot swim.

I was on dry land, this was not real, but my heart was actually racing.

Once off the boat, we walked to an area with barbed wire: our destination. Instead of experiencing a wave of relief for arriving safely at a place of refuge, I felt as though I was entering a prison. And in many cases, especially for women, that is the case.

Christina informed us that in some countries when women arrive at refugee camps without husbands, they and their children are considered ���without citizenship.��� Meaning they are a non-person. They can���t work and they can���t get papers, which means they can���t get out of the camp once they���ve been admitted.

The journey goes on. We walked through a tent camp, with children���s dolls made of plastic bags, cars made from milk jugs and even bug spray cartons.

Finally, we arrived at the MSF aid station, where MSF workers are stationed for months at a time to help refugees with nutrition, malaria, cholera and even childbirth. In some places, hundreds or even thousands of people are processed every single day. It���s an enormous undertaking.

Refugees literally sacrifice everything to keep their families safe and to start a new life. Christina Psarra gives up everything to help them. The only thing she knows for months at a time is the arrival of refugee after refugee after refugee.

So what���s left over for her? The other side of the refugee story is the stress for the aid workers and their 24/7 schedule. And with Christina putting so much of herself into her work, what does it take not to burn out and what keeps her coming back? Listen to our conversation:

The “Forced From Home Exhibit” will be back on tour; check their website for upcoming dates.

Find more stories of how women rise up on “Inflection Point,”��Apple Podcasts, RadioPublic, Stitcher and NPROne.

Trump prepared to move on Middle East peace plan without Palestinians: report

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; Donald Trump (Credit: Getty/Kobi Gideon)

While Palestinian leaders have made it clear��that they don’t want to consider Donald Trump’s Middle East peace plan, the administration is reportedly still pushing forward.��

According to a new Axios report, the White House is allegedly considering moving forward with a “peace plan” for the region even if��the Palestinians are unwilling to participate and negotiate.��The report comes from anonymous ���U.S. senior officials��� who spoke to Axios:

The U.S. officials say the administration won’t impose on the Israelis or Palestinians to accept the plan, but may release it so the parties and international community can judge it at face value.

Just last week,��Trump��threatened to cut off U.S. aid to the Palestinians if their leaders don’t agree to peace talks with Israel.��In January, reports��surfaced that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was ���angered��� by��a preliminary��plan, parts of which were leaked one month after the White House announced it would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. In a speech to the Palestine Liberation Organization���s Central Council, Abbas called the reported peace plane ���the slap in the face of the century,��� according to the Jerusalem Post.

If the Axios report is true, this would further speculation that the White House��might not��have both parties’ best interests at heart ��� contrary to earlier proclamations.��

When Trump met with Abbas at the White House in May 2017,��he vowed to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to mediate an agreement that would be considerate of both parties.

Trump told reporters��at the time:��“I���m committed to working with Israel and the Palestinians to reach an agreement, but any agreement cannot be imposed by the United States or any other nation. The Palestinians and Israelis must work together to reach an agreement that allows both peoples to live, worship and thrive and prosper in peace. And I will do whatever is necessary to facilitate the agreement, to mediate, to arbitrate anything they���d like to do, but I would be a mediator or an arbitrator or a facilitator, and we will get this done.”

Recently, Vice President Mike Pence said the White House was waiting for the Palestinians to ���come back to the table.���

���The White House has been working with our partners in the region to see if we can develop a framework for peace,��� Pence told Reuters��in Jerusalem. ���It all just depends now on when the Palestinians are going to come back to the table.���

U.S. special envoy Jason Greenblatt also��reportedly met with EU ambassadors and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week where he emphasized the importance of ���continuous negotiation.��� According to Axios, he didn’t meet with Palestinian officials.����

White-supremacist propaganda on college campuses skyrocketed 258 percent in 2017, report says

Charlottesville: Race and Terror ��� VICE News Tonight on HBO (Credit: Youtube/Vice)

White-supremacist propaganda on U.S. college campuses has surged, increasing by��258 percent��between the fall of 2016 and fall 2017 according to a new��report by the Anti-Defamation League��(ADL)

The ADL tracked��reports of white-supremacist propaganda college campuses, including��those of fliers, stickers, banners and posters,��at 216 schools ranging from Ivy League institutions to community colleges in 44 different states and Washington D.C. While ADL recorded 41 incidents of white-supremacist propaganda in the fall of 2016, there were 147 incidents the following fall, a jump of 258 percent. The total number of such��reports in 2017��reached 290. One month into 2018, there have been already been 15 such documented incidents.

The ADL says��it believes that the source of this propaganda��is primarily��alt-right groups, which��the League��says have been targeting college campuses since the beginning of 2016. According to the ADL,��these groups have only increased their efforts since.

“The propaganda delivers a range of messages: it may promote a white supremacist group, or trumpet the urgent need to ‘save’ the white race,” the report says. “Frequently, the propaganda attacks minority groups, including Jews, Blacks, Muslims, non-white immigrants, and the LGBT community.”

Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the organization, said in a statement that “White supremacists are targeting college campuses like never before,” and “They see campuses as a fertile recruiting ground.”

For at��least 60 years, college campuses have been at the front, and sometimes the birthplace,��of multiple political and social movements, many of them progressive. The extensive participation of college students in the Civil Rights Movement as well as one of the��its��more integral organizations, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, is a perfect example.

As well, universities can��be spaces where some white students first interact with��people of color��and where they are first confronted with the naming and questioning of white supremacy and white privilege. Some white students will embrace these complexities and open themselves to a progressive and nuanced world view. Others will react against them, veering towards more racist, radical philosophies.

Eli Mosley ��� real name Elliott Kline ��� is a prominent alt-right figure who reportedly helped organize the white-supremacist rallies in Charlottesville in August 2017 and formerly led��the white-nationalist group Identity Evropa, perhaps the most active recruiter and promoter for the movement on campuses, according to the ADL. Mosley told Huff Post, “Young people matter, and college campuses have been where political battles have been fought since the ’60s and before it.” He added, “This is where political change happens. Fundamentally, it���s where the most anti-white institution is. Academia has become a factory for anti-white individuals, and to teach whites to hate themselves.”

Despite what Mosley claims, it seems that many are feeling those institutions have become environments that are troublingly amenable to white supremacy. Indeed, two students were so concerned about the rising tide of hate on their campus that they filed a civil rights lawsuit against San Francisco State University alleging��that an increasingly anti-Semitic atmosphere on campus, and the administration’s inability to properly address it, amounted to institutional discrimination��against��the school’s Jewish student body.

Amanda Berman, director of legal affairs at The Lawfare Project, has been investigating SFSU for almost a year and a half and is one of the organization’s lawyers suing on behalf of the students. She��said��in a statement,��“Every couple of weeks, another anti-Semitic incident occurred; another Jewish student faced harassment on campus; another openly degrading comment surfaced from a member of the administration; or another student faced recalcitrance when trying to benefit, the same as all other students, from the opportunities and privileges of enrollment at SFSU.”

While individual institutions are dealing (or not dealing) with this visible increase in hate and discrimination on their campuses in their own individual ways, the GOP��itself is working on a higher-education bill that��may have the effect of emboldening radical right-wing elements in colleges and universities nationwide.

An education bill making its way through Congress would allow religious colleges to ban same-sex relationships without consequence, let religious student groups block members of different faiths and give controversial speakers such as white-supremacist Richard Spencer better access to campus facilities for events, all in the name of��First Amendment rights. Should it��get the signature of President Donald Trump, it may happen that what is currently a grassroots surge in campus hate speech may get a top-down federal boost.

Pennsylvania is about to enter a constitutional crisis over its redistricting law

(Credit: Getty/AlexStar)

Pennsylvania Senate President Pro Tempore Joseph Scarnati is��signaling that he plans to ignore��a court order from the state’s Supreme Court to turn over data and redraw congressional district lines after a court found them to be gerrymandered.

On Wednesday, Scarnati’s lawyer said that the court gave the State Assembly no guidance in how to redraw the maps constitutionally. He also noted that Scarnati wouldn’t turn over data to the Supreme Court, saying that the courts��was overstepping��its jurisdiction.

Lawyer Brian Paszamant said the court’s plan was to “usurp the General Assembly���s constitutionally delegated role of drafting Pennsylvania���s congressional districting plan,” according to the Morning Call.

A��Jan. 22 Supreme Court ruling,��found that state Republicans “clearly, plainly and palpably violate[d] the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and, on that sole basis,” in striking down the state’s gerrymandered districts.��Under that��ruling, Scarnati had until Feb. 9 to redraw district boundaries; and if he didn’t, it would be up to the state’s governor, Tom Wolf ��� a Democrat ��� to do it.

But there’s a bigger problem lurking in the distance. In Washington,��Republicans are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to get involved. Last month, it was certain that the Court wouldn’t,��because the state court cited the state’s Constitution. Were Washington to take interest, it could be seen as federal overreach.

The GOP has long��benefitted��from gerrymandering, specifically since its redrawing of district lines after the 2010 U.S. Census, as an effort to tilt elections in their favor. Most recently, federal judges declared gerrymandering in North Carolina to be unconstitutional and in favor of the GOP, as Salon has previously reported. The ruling was later blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court, and will likely remain in effect for the GOP in the 2018 midterm election.

 

Trump’s new budget targets Rick Perry’s Department of Energy for massive cuts

Rick Perry (Credit: AP/Cliff Owen)

President Donald Trump is about to send a new budget draft to Congress that will once again demonstrate his fealty to the energy industry.

The new budget draft would gut��Energy Department spending on renewable energy and energy efficiency by 72 percent for the 2019 fiscal year, according to The Washington Post.��Such a drastic cut further establishes that shifting to fossil fuels is a major policy priority of the Trump administration.

The proposed spending cuts��in 2019 are much greater than the ones Trump��requested��in the 2018��budget, although those cuts��were left unimplemented due to the ongoing budget crisis. Trump had requested that the Energy Department’s��Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy only receive��$636.1 million in its budget for the 2018 fiscal year, a decline of nearly 70 percent from its current budget of $2.04 billion. For the 2019 fiscal year, the Trump administration wants the budget to fall to��$575.5 million. It also suggested reducing the agency’s staff from 680 in 2017 to 450 in 2019.

Trump has long been a major��supporter of the fossil fuels industry while serving as president. This included��prioritizing a laundry list of 14 environmental deregulatory policies��sent to him by one of his staunchest supporters, Robert E. Murray of Murray Energy, as well as pulling America out of the Paris climate accord and repeatedly denying the threat posed by man-made global warming.

Energy Department spokeswoman��Shaylyn Hynes emailed the Post to insist that “though it may not fit into the narrative of the environmental lobby and their pundits, the truth is that Secretary Perry believes that there is a role for all fuels ��� including renewables ��� in our energy mix.”

Devin Nunes’ “release the memo” saga is a transparent farce, but it’s working

(Credit: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

As early as today, a controversial three-and-a-half page document authored by Republicans on the House intelligence committee may be released to the public. The committee���s Republican members, led by Chairman Devin Nunes, a close ally to President Donald Trump, claim the memo contains damaging information about the early stages of the FBI���s investigation into Trump associates��� ties to Russia that will shock the republic to its core. Democrats respond that the document is a shoddy political salvo that rips information from its proper context in a brazen effort to undermine our institutions. The FBI is publicly warning that the memo makes ���material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the memo���s accuracy.��� And it should be obvious to anyone who���s been paying attention that Nunes long since gave up any real credibility to act as an arm of the White House, and that this effort is an explicit, deliberate attempt to undermine special counsel Robert Mueller���s probe.

With Trump expected to aid the memo���s publication, we���ll all know its contents shortly. But at this point, the memo���s actual claims are all but irrelevant ��� what matters is the way it will be used by the president���s allies as fodder against Mueller. To the extent that he has been able to keep the media���s attention on the memo���s contents, Nunes has already achieved his aim: He���s confused the public, diverted attention from the administration���s misdeeds, and riled up the Republican base in defense of the president.

It was a fairly obvious political stunt: Nunes drafted the memo in secret and sent Republican members out to trumpet its conclusions (complete with a hashtag!) as worse than Watergate yet claim they are unable to speak to its details, and publically demand action to release it. His tactic has generated two weeks of hollow scandal coverage from the mainstream press and frighteningly catastrophic doomsaying promotion from the president���s media allies.

Meanwhile, Nunes has successfully siphoned off a portion of the media���s attention from the ongoing revelationsof obstruction and corruption in the Trump administration ��� as well as the Republican Congress��� willingness to aid his unprecedented demolition of political norms ��� and focused them instead on what amounts to his op-ed. Every inch of front-page space or every minute of television coverage journalists spend reporting on the memo is one they can���t use to report on the president asking the then-acting FBI director whom he voted for, or that he ordered Mueller���s firing only to back off when the top White House lawyer threatened to resign, or that he asked the deputy attorney general if he was ���on my team��� ��� all stories that broke since the #ReleasetheMemo campaign began.

The result is likely a confused public that doesn���t quite know what���s going on but has heard that the FBI might have done something wrong, and a frenzied Republican base unshakably convinced that the FBI���s leadership is anti-Trump and needs to be purged immediately.

This is the lesson Republicans learned long ago: If you have control over the congressional investigative apparatus, you can wield it as a weapon against your political foes. The conservative press will champion your wildest fantasies and savage the mainstream press for refusing to sufficiently cover your investigations. And journalists, otherwise grounded in reality, find themselves trapped, unable to ignore a GOP committee chair���s allegations, however implausible, bound by norms of impartiality against stating directly that the investigators are acting in bad faith.

It seems there is no amount of incompetence or malfeasance that the Republicans can demonstrate that can break this cycle. You can shoot a melon in your backyard as evidence that a presidential aide didn���t really commit suicide, and your investigations will still get covered. You can openly declare that your investigation is succeeding because it���s driving down the poll numbers of its target, and your investigations will still get covered. Your efforts to work on behalf of the White House can be so obvious as to trigger a string of stories about your lack of credibility and even lead to your recusal from an investigation, but a year later you can be back in action, and your investigations will still get covered.

At best, the claims end up getting covered as a controversy. But that favors the Republican aggressors because you can���t cover a dispute without promoting their position, helping them inflame doubts in the minds of the public.

If reporters believe that congressional investigators are acting in bad faith, the only way to get that information out to the public is to center their stories around that point. But few are willing to do so.

How mass incarceration harms U.S. health, in 5 charts

(Credit: Getty/sakhorn38)

The U.S. incarcerates a higher percentage of its citizens than any other country in the world.

There���s little doubt among researchers that mass incarceration is wreaking havoc on our society, in particular on people of color, LGBTQ and the poor. What���s often overlooked in this discussion is the damage that prisons and jails do to our health �����from those who are incarcerated to their family members waiting at home to those who work in detention settings.

As researchers and advocates, we have studied mass incarceration issues and started discussions on the ethics of this practice. To us, the evidence is clear: Mass incarceration is a public health scourge in the U.S.

The only reasonable response is to limit the unnecessary use of incarceration across the board �����as lawmakers in New Jersey and Maryland are attempting to do.

Incarceration and health

Each year, an estimated 1,000 people die while incarcerated in local jails.

A majority of those who died were not convicted of any crimes and were being held pretrial, often because they were too poor to afford bail. Those awaiting trial in jail have nearly twice the mortality rate of people who have been convicted and are serving their sentence. This appears to be a testament to the stress associated with being held pretrial.

Perhaps not surprisingly, suicide is the leading cause of mortality in U.S. jails, accounting for 34 percent of all deaths. Again, the vast majority of these individuals have not been convicted of any crime. Suicide rates among incarcerated individuals are three to four times higher than the general public.

Many individuals in jail and prison suffer from mental illness. A majority of sentenced people in jail and prison meet the criteria for drug dependence and abuse.

Even though incarceration often forces individuals to remain sober, being incarcerated generally exacerbates mental health disorders. Research has shown that those with mental illness and substance use disorders have better treatment outcomes outside of correctional facilities. When individuals who have been receiving mental health care end up in correctional facilities, they often experience a large disruption in their care. They might lose access to medication or be forced to switch to entirely different ones. Their relationship with a mental health provider might also be severed.

The food����� which tends to be high-calorie and high-fat �����often has poor nutritional value. This, combined with restrictions on physical movement and the stress of incarceration and overcrowding, can have adverse effects on both mental and physical health. Lack of privacy, poor sanitation and poor ventilation often only make matters worse.

Incarceration also puts individuals at risk for physical and sexual assault.

Furthermore, the U.S. faces the burgeoning crisis of a geriatric incarcerated population. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, almost 19 percent of inmates are over 50 years of age. To make matters worse, several states �����including Massachusetts, where we are based �����do not have compassionate release procedures for terminally ill or medically incapacitated people who are sick and dying in our prisons.

Family and employees

It���s not just the incarcerated individual who suffers.

Over half of people behind bars are parents. Most incarcerated mothers were primary caregivers to minor children before their incarceration.

An estimated 2.7 million U.S. children have an incarcerated parent. Having a parent incarcerated is considered to be an ���adverse childhood experience.��� This is linked to multiple negative health outcomes throughout life, including poor mental health, substance abuse, disease, disability and even early death.

Children with an incarcerated household member are also likelier to experience poor mental and physical health in adulthood.

Since prisons and jails are high stress environments to work in and are often overcrowded and understaffed, correctional officers too can experience serious mental and physical health problems.

A recent survey of 8,300 correctional officers found that 10 percent have seriously considered or attempted suicide. That���s three times the rate of the general population. Correctional workers also experience higher levels of hypertension from elevated stress levels and higher levels of obesity than the national average.

Addressing the problem

So how do we reduce mass incarceration?

The humane treatment of drug users is a step in the right direction. In the face of the opioid epidemic, some policymakers have pushed to redirect resources away from incarceration and toward substance abuse treatment and social services.

But to curb the unhealthy effects of incarceration, we believe that policymakers should extend this compassion to all individuals convicted of crimes. This means reducing the unnecessary use of incarceration across the board, not just when dealing with drug users.

Research indicates that the repeal of mandatory minimum sentencing laws would help; that overzealous and unaccountable prosecutors must be reined in; and that our system of cash bail, which punishes the poor, must be overhauled.

As practitioners based in Massachusetts, we welcomed the passing of the omnibus criminal justice reform bill last October. The bill would retroactively reduce mandatory minimum sentences and would establish a process to permit the medical parole of incapacitated people from prison who pose no public safety risk.

What���s more, the bill���s proposed reforms to cash bail �����which would be replaced by a risk assessment system �����could reduce the use of pretrial detention, as it has in New Orleans and New Jersey. Similar reforms to reduce cash bail have also been adopted in Alaska, Illinois, New Mexico and Kentucky.

As momentum continues to gain for reform efforts in the U.S. penal system, we believe policymakers across the country should take action to ameliorate the adverse health effects of incarceration and help make our society more just.

Emily Nagisa Keehn, Associate Director, Human Rights Program, Harvard Law School, Harvard University and J. Wesley Boyd, Faculty, Center for Bioethics and Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University